<p>^
Unfortunately the nutritional question was not in the experimental section.</p>
<p>LOL I literally spent an hour writing this, I was so fired up and into it, I didn’t even realize the time that had passed. Anyways, I sent it to Collegeboard and I’m just going to post it if anyone else wants a good summary of why the question should be nullified and if anyone wants to takes parts of it for their own emails/letters/whatnot.</p>
<p>To whom it concerns at Collegeboard,</p>
<p>I took the U.S. Version of the SAT I earlier today, on December 3rd, 2011. During the test, I encountered a multiple-choice question on one of the math sections that showed a nutrition label for a box of crackers. This was a early number question, perhaps number 6 or 7, and thus, I assumed it would be relatively easy, since the general trend seems to be that the questions get more difficult as you progress farther into the section. The question was one of the the Roman Numeral type, which requires the test taker to find which statements MUST be true from a set of 3 Roman Numerals. The question showed a nutrition label with the standard serving size, number of servings box, calories, etc. and while I cannot remember what Roman Numeral I and III stated, I am almost positive that Roman Numeral I was correct and Roman Numeral III was incorrect. This leaves Roman Numeral II as the last statement to check and the only one which I found to be extremely confusing, ambiguous, and unfair. It stated something to this extent: “The Calories from Fat is less than 40% of the total calories”. On the nutrition label, there were two separate categories: Calories = 80 and Calories from Fat = 35. After reading Roman Numeral II and looking at the calorie numbers, I thought that the Calories and Calories from Fat were separate categories, as they were listed. Thus, I added 80 + 35 = 115 and divided 35/115 to find the ratio/percentage of 0.3043 (which is translated to 30.43%) and so I believed that Roman Numeral II was indeed TRUE, since the Calories from Fat were less than 40% according to my calculations. However, I became stuck on the problem because I then considered the idea that the Calories from Fat were possibly a PART of the Calories number, which would mean 35/80 = 0.4375 (which is translated to 43.75%), thus making Roman Numeral II FALSE. However, I stuck with my original answer (since people always say to stick with your intuition/first idea) and said answer choice D (I believe that is the right letter) which said that Roman Numerals I and II were true. I came to this conclusion because I thought that:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>If the Collegeboard intended for Roman Numeral II to be false, they would have likely made the categories: Total Calories and Calories from Fat, which would have made the question much less ambiguous. </p></li>
<li><p>This was one of the early questions, and so I assumed I was overthinking it.</p></li>
<li><p>Roman Numerals I and III, while I cannot remember their exact statements, were easily proved by arthimetic calculations similar to how I found Roman Numeral II to be true. For example, I believe Roman Numeral I asked for how many total crackers there were in the box, and that required the test taker to realize that he or she must multiply the serving size and servings per box categories. This statement was very clear and straightforward, which is how I assumed Roman Numeral II was intended.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>After I finished the SAT and arrived home, I looked at numerous and various nutrition labels and even googled the question “How do you read a nutrition label?” (which produced [Nutrition</a> Facts: An interactive guide to food labels - MayoClinic.com](<a href=“http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/nutrition-facts/NU00293]Nutrition”>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/nutrition-facts/NU00293)) and was dismayed to find that I indeed misinterpreted the label’s calories. Despite this, I still feel as though this problem was unwarrented and, overall, a misconstructed question.</p>
<p>Here is why I believe this question should be looked into for possible nullifcation/other retractive measures: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>First and foremost, a nutrition label should not have been included in the math section to begin with because understanding it requires outside knowledge that is not related to SAT I math. Support for this is taken directly from [About</a> the Tests - What is the SAT](<a href=“The SAT – SAT Suite | College Board”>The SAT – SAT Suite | College Board), which states “The SAT doesn’t test logic or abstract reasoning. It tests the skills you’re learning in school: reading, writing and math. Your knowledge and skills in these subjects are important for success in college and throughout your life” and “The mathematics section includes questions on arithmetic operations, algebra, geometry, statistics and probability”. I have never learned how to correctly read a nutrition label in school and I am sure many others have not as well. Additionally, none of the categories listed from the website include understanding questions on interpreting such labels. While it is indeed an arithmetic operation, I have never seen any other SAT 1 math question that required students to interpret anything other than various basic charts, graphs, diagrams, shapes, and figures. While knowing how to read a nutrition label would probably be considered “common knowledge”, in reality, a decent portion of people probably do not know how to. (While it is impossible to substantiate to the Collegeboard, I asked my parents how they would interpret a box of granola bar’s calorie information and, like me, they incorrectly assumed Calories and Calories from Fat were separate numbers.) Just like everyone else, I have read my fair share of nutrition labels intermittently; however, being asked to recall/recognize if these nutrition labels that I have read stated “Calorie and Calories from Fat” instead of perhaps, “Total Calories and Calories from Fat”, and compare it to the nutrition label on the SAT problem, all while rushing against the clock and being under-pressure, is a hard task to ask. What I am trying to say is that, without having been taught how to correctly read a nutrition label (such as myself and presumably many others), even people who have read nutrition labels before would potentially be confused. Also, please don’t neglect the fact that, while probably not a large number, but indeed, a portion of test takers may have never cared to read nutrition labels or looked at them carefully, thus making this question biased to them as well. </p></li>
<li><p>If anything, this question could have been so much clearer if it stated “Total Calories and Calories from Fat”; however, it does not. It seems almost ambiguous to say “Calories” and “Calories from Fat” on an SAT question, because it seems like if a test taker didn’t know ahead of time how to interpret the label and they are rushing through the question (to presumably have enough time for the harder, later questions), they would assume the calorie measurements are two separate categories, as opposed to one. While this very may well be what Collegeboard was trying to do, since many questions on the SAT, as a whole, utilize small nuances in wording and directions to force test takers to meticulously examine each question or risk making a careless mistake, this kind of “trick” question doesn’t seem fair since it involves outside knowledge that shouldn’t be required and, even with scrupulous examination of the nutrition label, would still be confusing to those who have no prior knowledge on how to correctly interpret them.</p></li>
<li><p>Lastly, although I am an Asian-American and was born in the United States, many test takers who took the U.S. Version of the SAT I are immigrants and do not have full mastery of the english language. If a fluent English speaker, such as I, found the wording on this nutrition label to be tricky and confusing, a test taker who has lived in the United States for less than 10 years would be even more disadvantaged than me. While many of these immigrants, who do not have full mastery of English, can and do take the TOEFL test to substitute their Critical Reading and Writing scores, this question was located in the MATH section, and thus, is uneffected by the TOEFL.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>While I do not mean to belabor the point and overreact to this problem, I feel as though, if indeed my answer is incorrect, (I would look utterly ridiculous for going on this digression if I was correct all along, but I certainly pray that I am.) it could impact my scores significantly. Overall, I felt confident about the rest of the math problems, and generally thought that they were quite easy, which may mean that the December 2011 test will have a harsh curve for the math section. By missing one question that I felt was not sufficient in gauging my understanding of SAT I Math, I could fall from a potential 800 to possibly a 770-750, and this is assuming that I correctly answered every other question! For someone who has high expectations, I find this is a significant difference, and seeing as how this is my last chance to take the SAT before sending my scores to prospective colleges, I wish to perform to the best of my ability, which I believe was hindered by the ambiguity of that question.</p>
<p>Please, I respectfully urge Collegeboard to take into consideration this reasoning, which is probably the same position that many other test takers have, and look into the question.</p>
<p>Thank you so much for your time and attention.</p>
<p>Sincerely,
ME</p>
<p>Why was this so hard for everyone? I spent 30 seconds on it, granted I probably made plenty of my own stupid mistakes, but this one seemed pretty straightforward.</p>
<p>While I answered Only 1, I think it is absolutely true that this question tested knowledge which was completely irrelevant to mathematics. Knowing how to read nutrition charts has nothing to do with math. What if Indian or Korean students answered this question?</p>
<p>SAT is not necessarily THE TEST OF READING / MATHEMATICS / WRITING…
Don’t rely on Blue Book/Princeton/Barron/Whatever materials you use;</p>
<p>You can study for SAT by studying subjects in core subjects that you learn in school;</p>
<p>I do hope that there will be a positive outcome for those who support nullifying the nutrition label problem.</p>
<p>@jkim I fully support you as well. I sent an email to the first one too, and I will send one to that address as well! Please send emails guys!</p>
<p>@thaman I believe it has no effect on the curve. The curve is calculated ahead of time. By pulling it out, it won’t affect your score negatively if you got it right.</p>
<p>@chinaboys What is your company good sir? And how would you suggest we proceed in getting the question nullified?</p>
<p>I’ll email them to plead with them to not remove the question. I got it right. Why? 1), I know how nutrition labels work. 2). Calories from Fat is obviously in the category of Calories. Assuming they are different would be like assuming a Desk Chair does not count as a chair. Of course it does. If you do not know how to read a nutrition label, you don’t deserve to get a good grade on the SAT anyways.</p>
<p>Also, I am pretty sure it would affect the one’s who got it rights score. I’m not entirely clear on exactly how the grading process works, but I do know that a 69/70 is a better percentage then a 68/69.</p>
<p>@donb036 Well that’s your opinion. I can’t tell you that you have to email them to support us. But is the question really fair to immigrants from Asia? Calories and calories from fat could seem separate to them and to others. Not that many people read nutrition labels. The reason I am angry is because the SAT is not supposed to assume information like that.</p>
<p>@jkim94 Can you post that information in other forums as well. I have posted the email, but I don’t want to keep posting because people will think it’s spammy. Maybe you should also post that in the math sat discussion part <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/1251972-sat-math-thread-23.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/1251972-sat-math-thread-23.html</a> or the general sat discussion one <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/1251160-december-2011-sat-pre-post-test-discussion.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/1251160-december-2011-sat-pre-post-test-discussion.html</a></p>
<p>@donb036 you are completely right. all of you are just pi$$ed that you made a stupid mistake and you want to improve your scores at the cost of those of us who are smart enough to understand that “calories from fat” is obviously a subcategory of “calories”. sucks for any of you who cannot understand a simple nutrition label, you don’t even know what you’re putting into your body when you eat that piece of food</p>
<p>@grojos So the ability to read a nutrition label problem defines intelligence?</p>
<p>This example should clear up why it is implied that “calories from fat” is a subcategory:</p>
<p>I own:</p>
<p>Animals: 80
Cats: 35
Sunflowers: 35</p>
<p>Is it not obvious that a cat is an animal and therefore you do 35/80? If it asked what percentage of what i own is sunflowers, THEN i would do 35/(80animals + 35sunflowers) because sunflowers are not animals, and cats are already included in “animals”</p>
<p>@miceman the ability to comprehend categories and heirarchy was the intelligence being tested</p>
<p>@grojos I understand what you are trying to say. However, it is obvious that a cat is included as part of the animal category. It is not obvious that calories from fat is included in calories. It would have been fair if they said “total calories” but they didn’t. An immigrant could think calories and calories from fat are separate just because they did not know of this.</p>
<p>Here’s another example:</p>
<p>In my mouth I have:</p>
<p>Teeth: 32
Teeth on my lower jaw: 16</p>
<p>It is IMPLIED that “teeth” is total teeth</p>
<p>@grojos But again, that is known to everyone. The calorie question was not.</p>
<p>xpost from @jkim94 on how to contact the Collegeboard</p>
<p>If you guys would like to help try and get this question nullified, email Collegeboard at: <a href="mailto:satquestion@info.collegeboard.org">satquestion@info.collegeboard.org</a> </p>
<p>This is their email for: Test Error or Ambiguity -
If you encounter a test error or ambiguous question, continue testing. Report the problem to the supervisor before you leave the test center, then write to us, including the test section, the test question (as well as you can remember it), and an explanation of your concern. The SAT Program will respond to written inquiries. (Taken right off of their website!) </p>
<p>Additionally, if you want, you can mail them at (perhaps mail would be more likely to be read?):
SAT Program
Test Development
225 Phillips Boulevard
Ewing, NJ 08628</p>
<p>OR fax them at: (609) 683-2800</p>
<p>REMEMBER TO DO IT BEFORE WEDNESDAY NEXT WEEK (12/14/11) OTHERWISE IT WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED!</p>
<p>@grojos
What are you talking about?</p>
<p>Knowing that cats are a subset of animals is NO WHERE near as difficult as knowing calories from fat is a subset of calories. I guarantee you any non-fluent english speaker could realize the relationship of the former but not the later. A more proper comparison would be something like: </p>
<p>In an electrically powered machine.
Voltage: 300W
Voltage of Lithium Polymer: 80W</p>
<p>Even if you guys say it’s so “straightforward,” if many people do not understand the general concept of the problem and it is not math relates, it isn’t fair. I guarantee if you were in the same positions as us, you would be disgruntled as well.</p>